Outcome of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis

The impact of spinal versus general anesthesia on the variability of surgical times: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With spinal anesthesia, when cases are taking longer than usual, there may be behavioural tendencies for surgical teams to work more quickly. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine standard deviations of surgical times for single-dose spinal anesthetics versus general anesthesia. We compared ratios of mean surgical times as a secondary endpoint.

METHODS

We included randomized trials of humans where general or spinal anesthesia was used for one category of surgical procedure (e.g., hip arthroplasty) and the article reported the means and standard deviations of operative durations. We used statistical methods suitable for surgical times following log-normal distributions. We used generalized confidence intervals to calculate point estimates of ratios and standard errors for each study, followed by pooling among studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment.

RESULTS

Among the 77 included studies, 96% were of high quality for our endpoint (i.e., had a low risk of bias), as no (0%) study focused on comparing variability of surgical times and none had surgical time as the primary endpoint. Spinal anesthesia was associated with 6.6% smaller standard deviations than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 15.8% smaller to 1.9% larger, P = 0.13). By meta-regression, there was no significant association of the ratios of standard deviations with study quality (P = 0.39), year of publication (P = 0.76), or categories of procedures (all five P ≥ 0.28). Spinal anesthesia was associated with 1.1% smaller means than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 3.7% smaller to 1.5% larger, P = 0.42). There were no significant associations between the ratios of means and study quality (P = 0.47), year of publication (P = 0.95), or categories of procedures (all five, P ≥ 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show with high confidence that the effect of choosing spinal anesthesia on variability in surgical time, if present, is sufficiently small to have no substantive direct economic effect. The same conclusion applies to mean surgical time. Therefore, although anesthetic choice has a clinical (biological) impact and affects anesthesia times, the direct effects on surgical times and workflow are minimal at most. Anesthetic choice does not influence operating theatre productivity via changes to surgical times. The impact of spinal anesthetic effects is limited to nonoperative times (e.g., reducing anesthesia-controlled times by using a block room before the patient enters the operating room).

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42023461952 ); first submitted 8 September 2023.

Outcomes of Regional Block in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection

INTRODUCTION

Infection is among the most common reasons for revision after a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is associated with notable morbidity and mortality rates. As the demand for TJA increases, a concurrent increase in the prevalence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is also expected to rise. While previous studies have explored differences in postoperative outcomes between general and spinal anesthesia, there is limited data on the use of regional blocks in patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty for PJI. This study evaluated the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revision TJA for PJI using regional blocks.

METHODS

Data from 518 patients were retrospectively collected. Patients included in the study had undergone revision TJA for PJI from January 2004 to January 2023 at a single institution. Patients undergoing same-day bilateral revisions, above-knee amputations, and aseptic revisions were excluded. Postoperative complications investigated included local complications, postoperative transfusion, wound complication, readmission, sepsis, systemic infection, spinal infection, death, persistent PJI, periprosthetic fracture, and unplanned revision surgery. Chi-square analysis was used to compare postoperative complications between procedures that used spinal or general anesthesia with regional blocks and those with spinal or general anesthesia without regional blocks.

RESULTS

Of the 518 patients who underwent revision TJA, 63 (12.2%) used a regional block. After surgery, 12.7% (n = 8) of patients with regional block and 23.5% (n = 107) of patients without regional block experienced persistent PJI (P = 0.076). No significant differences in wound complication (P = 0.333), readmission (P = 0.998), revision surgery (P = 0.783), and death (P = 0.588) were found between those with and without regional block use. Sepsis (P = 0.224), systemic infection (P = 0.220), and spinal infection (P = 0.998) rates within 1 year after revision TJA for PJI surgery were comparable between the two groups. No local infections were observed at the block site. A subanalysis comparing spinal and general anesthesia demonstrated comparable persistent PJI postoperatively and complication rates; however, spinal anesthesia use was associated with shorter length of stay (P = 0.003) and lower transfusion rates (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the use of regional block is not associated with an increased probability of postoperative persistent PJI, local wound complication, readmission, spinal/systemic/other infections, death, or revision surgery. Surgeons can comfortably choose regional block as a safe option for revision surgery for PJI. Consistent with previous research, patients who received spinal anesthesia had shorter hospital stays and lower transfusion rates when compared with those who received general anesthesia.

Comparative effectiveness of neuraxial versus general anesthesia in total joint replacement surgery: an updated retrospective analysis using more recent data

INTRODUCTION

Over a decade ago, our study group showed improved outcomes among total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) patients given neuraxial versus general anesthesia. As the use of neuraxial anesthesia has increased and anesthesia practices evolve, updated analyses are critical to ensure if previously found differences still persist.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included elective THA/TKAs from 2006 to 2021 as recorded in the all-payor Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariable regression models measured the association between anesthesia type (neuraxial, general, combined) and several adverse outcomes (pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular events, pulmonary compromise, cardiac complications, acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, all infections, acute renal failure, gastrointestinal complications, postoperative mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admissions, and blood transfusions); models were run separately by period (2006-2015 and 2016-2021) and THA/TKA.

RESULTS

We identified 587,919 and 499,484 THAs for 2006-2015 and 2016-2021, respectively; this was 1,186,483 and 803,324 for TKAs. Among THAs, neuraxial anesthesia use increased from 10.7% in 2006 to 25.7% in 2021; during both time periods, specifically neuraxial versus general anesthesia was associated with lower odds for most adverse outcomes, with sometimes stronger (protective) effect estimates observed for 2016-2021 versus 2006-2015 (eg, acute renal failure OR 0.72 CI 0.65 to 0.80 vs OR 0.56 CI 0.50 to 0.63 and blood transfusion OR 0.91 CI 0.89 to 0.94 vs OR 0.44 CI 0.41 to 0.47, respectively; all p<0.001). Similar patterns existed for TKAs.

CONCLUSION

These findings re-confirm our study group's decade-old study using more recent data and offer additional evidence toward the sustained benefit of neuraxial anesthesia in major orthopedic surgery.

Comparison of Pneumonia and Major Complications After Total Joint Arthroplasty With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia: A Propensity-matched Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Spinal anesthesia (SA) allows total joint arthroplasty to be done while minimizing opioids and systemic anesthetic agents compared with general anesthesia (GA). SA has been associated with shortened postoperative recovery; however, the relationship between SA, major postoperative complications, and pneumonia (PNA) remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients in a large, national database who underwent total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty from 2010 to 2020 were identified. 1:1 propensity score matching was used to create matched groups of patients who underwent SA and GA. The groups were matched by age, sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification. 1:1 matching was also done among the ASA classifications as a subanalysis.

RESULTS

Overall, equally matched groups of 217,267 patients who underwent SA versus GA were identified. 850 patients (0.39%) developed postoperative PNA after GA versus 544 patients (0.25%) after SA ( P < 0.001). The risk of major complications was 6,922 (3.2%) in the GA group and 5,401 (2.5%) in the SA group ( P < 0.001). Similarly, the risk of unplanned postoperative reintubation was higher (0.18% versus 0.10%, P < 0.001) and mortality was higher (0.14% versus 0.09%, P < 0.001) in the GA group than in the SA group. In ASA 1 to 3 patients, the risk of PNA was 0.08% to 0.21% higher with GA than with SA. In ASA 4 patients, the risk of PNA was 0.42% higher in SA than in GA (1.92% versus 1.5%, P < 0.001) and the mortality rate was nearly doubled in GA than in SA (1.46% versus 0.77%, P = 0.017).

DISCUSSION

Overall, GA was associated with a small but markedly higher rate of major complications, mortality, and PNA than SA in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty when matching for differences in comorbidities. ASA 4 patients experienced the greatest increase in absolute risk of mortality with GA versus SA.

Postoperative complications of spinal vs general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Elderly patients with hip fractures are at high risk for mortality due to postsurgical complications. Hip hemiarthroplasty is a routine procedure done in elderly patients for surgical repair  of femoral neck fractures. Both general and spinal anesthesia can be used in elderly patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty. Rates of postoperative complications among the two anesthetic choices have not been directly compared. In this study, we compare the rates of postoperative complications in elderly patients (age greater than 70) undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures using a national database.

METHODS

Data for the years 2015-2020 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) were used for the study. Patients greater than 70 years of age who received a hip hemiarthroplasty with general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia were identified using CPT procedure codes. Pertinent preoperative variables and rates of postoperative complications were characterized and analyzed.

RESULTS

Our study found that elderly patients who received spinal anesthesia had, on average, longer length of stays but shorter operative times compared to patients who received general anesthesia. Furthermore, we found that patients who received spinal anesthesia had lower rates of systemic sepsis, cardiac arrests, and blood transfusions when compared to patients who received general anesthesia. Finally, we found that overall rates of mortality were significantly lower in the spinal anesthesia cohort compared to the general anesthesia cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our work suggests that patients who underwent spinal anesthesia for hip arthroplasty may have lower rates of postoperative complications. This work further highlights the role of anesthetic choice in preventing complications following hip hemiarthroplasty procedures.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Contemporary Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia is increasingly used in complex patient populations including revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anesthesia in a large institutional series of revision THAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 4,767 revision THAs (4,533 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry. Of these cases, 86% had general and 14% had spinal anesthesia. Demographics between groups were similar with mean age of 66 years, 52% women, and mean body mass index of 29. Complications including all-cause rerevisions and reoperations were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that accounted for patient and surgical factors. The mean follow-up was 7 years.

RESULTS

Patients treated with spinal anesthesia required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (P < .001) and had lower numeric pain rating scale scores (P < .001). Spinal anesthesia had a decreased LOS (4.2 versus 4.8 days; P = .007), fewer cases of altered mental status (odds ratio (OR) 3.1, P = .001), fewer blood transfusions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer rerevisions (OR 1.6, P = .04), and fewer reoperations (OR 1.5, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia was associated with lower oral morphine equivalent use and reduced LOS in this large cohort of revision THAs. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia was associated with fewer cases of altered mental status, transfusion, intensive care unit admission, rerevision, and reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Operative room time comparison between general and spinal anesthesia in total hip arthroplasty: an institutional study

PURPOSE

A relatively high expense with any procedure is total operative time; two components being the time spent anesthetizing the patient and time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room (OR). Both times can be affected by the anesthetic method used. This study compares different operative time intervals for both spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA), in patients undergoing a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), to identify the most appropriate and cost-effective anesthetic method.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution for primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed in the year 2019. Primary THAs without complications performed by three orthopedic surgeons were selected. Anesthesia records for 200 patients were used to compare perioperative time intervals; 100 consecutive patients that received SA and 100 consecutive patients that received GA.

RESULTS

The time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room was 8 min for GA and 5 min for SA (p < 0.001). Total operative time for GA was 90 min and 87 min for SA (p = 0.3330). Total pre-operative time averaged 26 min in SA compared to 25 min in GA (p = 0.5874). Non-operative total time (all time components of patient interaction excluding surgery start to surgery finish) was significantly shorter in SA with an average of 52 compared to 56 in GA (p = 0.0151).

CONCLUSION

Time to transfer patient out of the OR and total non-operative time was significantly shorter in patients who received spinal anesthesia. These results and the complications of both general and spinal anesthesia should be taken into consideration when anesthetizing patients undergoing primary THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Assessing the Environmental Carbon Footprint of Spinal versus General Anesthesia in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusions

BACKGROUND

The U.S. health care sector produces approximately 10% of national greenhouse gas emissions, paradoxically harming human health. Neurosurgery is a resource-intensive specialty that likely contributes significantly, yet literature assessing this impact is absent. We investigate the difference in carbon emissions between spinal versus general anesthesia in lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients underwent a single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) from a single surgeon; 50 received spinal anesthesia and 50 received general anesthesia. Data were extracted from patient records. Amounts of anesthetics were calculated from intraoperative records and converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e).

RESULTS

The median CO₂e for general anesthesia was 4725 g versus 70 g for spinal anesthesia (P = 7.07e-18). The mean CO₂e for general anesthesia was 22,707 g versus 63 g for spinal anesthesia. Desflurane use led to outsized carbon emissions. Carbon footprint comparisons are made with familiar units such as miles driven by a car, and are provided for a single TLIF, 50 TLIFs (single surgeon's cases in a year), and 488,000 TLIFs (annual spinal fusions in the United States).

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first known comparative carbon footprint studies performed in neurosurgical literature. We highlight the dramatic carbon footprint reduction associated with using spinal anesthesia and reflect a single neurosurgeon's change in practice from using only general anesthesia to incorporating the use of spinal anesthesia. Within general anesthesia patients, desflurane use was particularly harmful to the environment. We hope that our study will pave the way toward future research aimed at uncovering and reducing neurosurgery's environmental impact.

Who Is Still Receiving Blood Transfusions After Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Incidence of blood transfusions after primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty (primary total hip arthroplasty [pTHA], revision THA [rTHA], primary total knee arthroplasty [pTKA], and revision TKA [rTKA]) has been decreasing for a multitude of reasons. The purpose of this study was to assess whether transfusion rates have continued to decline and evaluate patient factors associated with transfusions.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing pTHA, pTKA, rTHA, and rTKA between 2011 and 2019. Patients undergoing bilateral procedures and arthroplasty for fracture, infection, or tumor were excluded. Trends in blood transfusions were assessed. Patient factor association with blood transfusions was evaluated using 2018 and 2019 data.

RESULTS

Transfusion rates decreased from 21.4% in 2011 to 2.5% in 2019 for pTHA (P < .0001). For pTKA, transfusion rates declined from 17.6% to 0.7% (P < .0001). In rTHA, the transfusion rate decreased from 33.5% to 12.0% from 2011 to 2019 (P < .0001). Transfusion rates declined from 19.4% to 2.6% for rTKA during the study period (P < .0001). Transfusions were more frequent in patients who were older, female, with more comorbidities, with lower hematocrit, receiving nonspinal anesthesia, and with longer operative time. Lower preoperative hematocrit, history of bleeding disorders, and preoperative transfusion were associated with greater odds for postoperative transfusion after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Transfusions after both primary and revision total joint arthroplasty have continued to decrease. Studies of arthroplasty complications should account for decreasing transfusions when assessing overall complication rates. Future studies should consider interventions to further reduce transfusions in revision arthroplasty.

Anesthetic Effect of the Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block with Different Approaches on Total Hip Arthroplasty and Its Effect on Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction and Inflammation

Objective

The objective of this article is to make a comparison of the anesthetic effects of the inside and outside fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to study the effect of the different approaches of the FICB on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and serum inflammatory cytokines in THA patients.

Methods

A total of 60 patients who received THA treatment from January 2021 to December 2021 were divided into two groups, namely, Inside group (inside approach of the FICB) and Outside group (outside approach of the FICB), according to the different approaches of the FICB. Forty-eight hours after surgery, we compared the use of ropacaine dosage, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, the incidence of POCD, and the serum levels of IL-1, IL-6. Secondary indicators include surgical indicators and the quality of anesthesia cannula.

Results

The ratio of re-fix the catheter, intubation time, and the use of ropacaine dosage at 48 h after surgery in the Outside group were significantly higher than that in the Inside group (p &lt; 0.05), while the depth of cannulation in the Outside group was significantly lower than that in the Inside group (p &lt; 0.05). VAS scores were comparable between the Inside and the Outside groups, except at 24 h after surgery. The use of PCA from 24 to 48 h after surgery in the Outside group was significantly higher than that in the Inside group (p &lt; 0.05). The MMSE score and the incidence of POCD in the Outside group were higher than that in the Inside group. At the same time, the serum IL-1β levels at 1 and 6 h after surgery and the serum IL-6 levels at 1, 6, 24, and 48 h after surgery in the Outside group were significantly higher than that in the Inside group (p &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with the outside approach of the FICB, the inside approach of the FICB has better anesthetic effect, better postoperative analgesia, fewer postoperative analgesics, lower incidence of POCD, and lower serum cytokines during the treatment of THA patients.